Find a Lawyer

ENGLISH BISCUIT MANUFACTURES (PVT.) LIMITED versus MONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY

Sections 3, 11, 12, 14, 19 and 20 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) appeal of the High Court restitution for special reasons for filing a complaint by less than 25 persons in a special inquiry in the absence of notice. The complainant complained. The Monopoly Control Authority rejected the applicant on the basis that there was no incriminating person, that the showcase notices issued to the respondents by the Monopoly Control Authority were withdrawn and the proceedings dismissed, the petitioner filed by the petitioner also. The High Court excluded, not disturbed the moderate person the monopoly and binding business practices (control and prevention) under the ordinance, section 11 or 19 of 1970, of the ordinance order approved under section 11 or 19 of the monopoly. Was entitled to file an appeal under section 20. And the Restricted Business Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970 but this was an order under section 14 of the Ordinance, against which no appeal could be entertained pursuant to the provisions of Article 20 of the Ordinance. Neither the Authority's order nor the High Court's decision has suffered any unlawful interference, injustice or gross misconduct nor has it faced any misinterpretation or misinterpretation of any of the provisions / sections. Have had Monopolies and Restricted Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970 The High Court justified in admitting that the complaint filed by the applicant was not intact as it had to comply with Section 14 (2) of the monopoly. Was not filed or submitted by the required number of persons required under 25. And the Restricted Business Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, and the authority. top civil advocates from Dir lawyer